Why do we still need to submit horrible looking manuscripts (double spacing, figs separately) to journals when we build them in LaTeX? 

OK... I was thinking of solution for now. If you can convince them to accept HTML, why not Markdown? But either way — not a solution for me.
-
-
Markdown...also has major issues... https://www.adamhyde.net/whats-wrong-with-markdown/ …
-
Thanks in the middle of coding at the moment so I can't read as I can't burn my working memory — maybe later!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Many journals use JATS internaly. Pandoc can produce it, making Markdown suitable for
#scipubhttps://peerj.com/preprints/2648/ -
you dont get it. MD is not a standard and fails at citations, tables, interactive components plus images, data, identifiers,citations.
-
Word's doc isn't standard either, and is widely accepted by journals. Interactive HTML can be embedded into MD, citation syntax exist
-
Oh I see. You *want* to make the same mistake twice....cant do much about that...
-
Surprising amount of hostility for someone representing an org dedicated to collaboration, looking for "good faith open science actors".
-
You have really cool projects and our goals are not mutually exclusive. Maybe build that stuff instead of trolling on twitter?
-
To address your original objection: This is why CommonMark exists. http://commonmark.org
-
what are some collaborative MD/CommonMark editing tools? I love Typora but it's not collaborative. Git repo with PR comments?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
